modthispny

i have a '15 GS350 f-sport so it comes with the free traffic reports via HD radio, and boy is it useless.

It always shows green meaning no traffic on my commute to work in the morning even though 75% of the commute is bumper to bumper. Truth is, other than google, almost every other traffic report is not accurate. Every car make should just license google for their traffic reporting, similar to what Audi does.

ItzFilyO

I found my XM traffic to be 90% accurate.

Christobol

I've found XM traffic to be inaccurate as well. Sure it's 90% accurate when you consider that most of us drive to avoid traffic so the roads are clear, and XM's default is clear traffic. When I encounter heavy bumper to bumper traffic I've found XM to be 30 minutes delayed in reporting issues, or roughly 75% inaccurate. Conversely, I've encountered a couple of situations where XM says traffic is horrible, when it's fine because XM hasn't sent out an update to our radios yet.

If I am really concerned with getting somewhere on time I use Google. If I am curious but it's not crucial I use the car.

bclexus

I seem to recall reading that on-average XMTraffic is updated every 15-45 minutes. But, how long does it take for the original traffic (trouble spot) information to be reported so it can alert people? Who, where, how are these traffic problems reported? I guess you could see a traffic trouble-spot in as little as 15 minutes or so from first being reported, but I'm guessing the average time is much longer. Also, I suspect the larger the city, the more usable the feature.

rijc99

I gave up on nav traffic. Waze seems to be better. Not exact but better.

ItzFilyO

Well like I said, it's not perfect but in my area (San Fernando, DTLA, West Covina area) it's pretty accurate unless there is a new accident and everyone is just starting to pile up then u gotta wait until it updates. Google is the closest to real time updates.

rominl

iTrader: (4)

i don't know where OP is exactly but in my driving the nav traffic is relatively accurate. not person but i don't see it being worse than the google or apple maps on my phone. it gives me good enough idea on the current traffic

Allen K

iTrader: (4)

Mine is pretty good too. Only issue is that it likes directing me to congested local streets when the highways are jammed. Too bad they don't have local street traffic too

FishBike

XM traffic was useless for me. The updates were too infrequent, only provided at all during business hours (whereas most of my driving is evenings and weekends), and only covered highways, so I'd get redirected to local streets that were worse.

Waze is not perfect, far from it, but it solves all of those problems I mentioned and the maps are always up to date, too.

steverhode

Google Maps and Apple Maps cover surface streets and toll roads but here in Dallas XMAS Traffic only covers big highways, no till or local roads. Ridiculous

Christobol

I think because Sirius is encoding the entire nation's traffic into their signal they cannot support surface streets nationwide, so they have limited it to freeways and highways.

jkeller

It's that way everywhere in Texas. When I was driving through Tucson I noticed it also covered some city streets. Wish it did that here too.

GS3Tek

iTrader: (8)

I agree.
When I see traffic is a little slow from being out of the norm (in socal), I click on it and it's pretty accurate.

Rexus300

iTrader: (1)

Mines is 95% accurate here in metro-detroit which is amazing.

Atomic350F

This morning I was cruising freely on the 91 west it showed me green arrows all the way until Clark avenue, where it had the yellow icon and the arrows turned yellow.. I clicked it and the car said in its not so sexy robo-voice " slow traffic 91 westbound at Clark avenue"...

and you know what, brake lights appeared to me in reality moments later, right as I passed Clark avenue!

Useless or pretty darn impressive?!